Peer Review Process

Journal of Research in Educational Management (JREM) applies a rigorous, fair, and transparent Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of all published articles. Under this system, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. This anonymity is implemented to minimize potential bias, including bias related to the author's institutional affiliation, geographical background, academic reputation, or previous publications. Manuscripts are evaluated based on their scholarly contribution, methodological quality, originality, and relevance to the field of educational management. The peer review process of JREM follows the principles of ethical publishing practices based on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
All manuscripts submitted to JREM undergo an initial editorial screening conducted by the editorial team. At this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for their alignment with the journal's focus and scope, originality, academic quality, research methodology, ethical compliance, and adherence to the journal's author guidelines. Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening process are forwarded to independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the field of educational management. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two (2) expert reviewers using the Double-Blind Review system, in which both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process.

The reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • originality and contribution to the development of educational management;
  • theoretical foundation and conceptual framework;
  • research design, methodology, and data analysis;
  • clarity and coherence of findings and discussion;
  • significance and implications of the study;
  • quality of references and academic writing;
  • compliance with research ethics and publication standards.

The review process generally takes approximately 4–8 weeks, depending on the availability of reviewers and the complexity of the manuscript. Authors receiving revision decisions are required to revise their manuscripts according to the reviewers' comments and submit a revised version along with a response letter explaining the revisions made. Based on reviewers' evaluations, the possible editorial decisions are:

  1. Accept Submission
    The manuscript is accepted for publication without requiring substantial revision.
  2. Minor Revision
    The manuscript requires limited revisions before final acceptance.
  3. Major Revision
    The manuscript requires significant improvements and may be reviewed again after revision.
  4. Resubmit for Review
    The manuscript requires substantial modification and will undergo another round of peer review.
  5. Decline Submission
    The manuscript does not meet the academic, ethical, or editorial standards of the journal.

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewers' recommendations and editorial considerations. In certain cases, the editor may assign an additional reviewer for further evaluation before making a final decision. The publication schedule of accepted manuscripts, including article order and issue arrangement, is determined by the Editor-in-Chief by considering the acceptance date, thematic relevance, and overall composition of each journal issue. Journal of Research in Educational Management (JREM) is committed to maintaining a rigorous peer review system to ensure that all published articles contribute meaningful, reliable, and innovative knowledge to the field of transformative educational management.